This year’s review identified several foreign social media and file transferring websites, as well as a number of Internet service providers (ISPs), as being notorious markets including those hosted or located in Argentina, the British Virgin Islands, Canada, China, Czech Republic, France, Netherlands, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Russia, San Marino, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and Vietnam. Additionally, physical markets in Argentina, Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, Paraguay, Thailand and Uruguay were also identified as being notorious markets.

The USTR also highlighted a number of recent developments including efforts by certain previously listed Chinese sites to curb piracy activities on their websites, as well as increased enforcement actions by rights holders and government officials to shut down physical and online markets in Brazil, the European Union and Ukraine among others.

What’s The Takeaway? As we have said before, every foreign market has its own IP protection challenges. U.S. businesses that operate abroad or are expanding into new markets should review the USTR’s 2014 Out of Cycle Review of Notorious Markets to help evaluate the IP protection risks associated with particular markets they wish to enter. Doing so can help to ensure that such businesses can better protect their IP assets abroad.

As part of my ambitious plan to provide you with information on online copyright enforcement procedures through all of the countries in the world, I come to you with part III of my ongoing posting series on national notice and takedown provisions—South America. Although few South American countries have adopted full-fledged notice and takedown provisions as provided in the U.S., Australia, and others, many South American countries have or an in the process of adopting national notice and takedown provisions, either through legislative reforms or judicial action, or have adopted other measures owners or rights holders of copyright protected works (collectively, “Rights Holders”) can use to protect their works online.

However, as I have mentioned in previous posts on this topic, determining whether a Rights Holder can enforce rights in their work online and abroad depends on: (1) whether a work qualifies for foreign protection (aka national treatment) under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention) or the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS); (2) whether the Internet service provider (ISP) hosting the infringing use of the work is subject to jurisdiction in the country where online enforcement is sought; and (3) what online copyright enforcement procedures are available in the country of enforcement.

Each of these issues have been previously examined here and those with further questions should consult with a qualified attorney.

Below are the current online copyright enforcement procedures in each South American country. However, a couple of preliminary notes:

Classifications: A South American country that maintain legal protocols for a Rights Holder to directly petition an ISP to remove infringing content in order for the ISP to qualify for safe harbor protection from contributory liability for copyright infringement is identified below as a “Notice and Takedown System.” A country that does not provide legal provisions for a Rights Holder to directly enforce their copyright protections through an ISP notification system, and are instead forced to seek copyright enforcement through legal action are referred to as a “Judicial System.”

Notice Limitations: Unfortunately, even if a country maintains a Notice and Takedown System, an ISP may still refuse to disable access to a website or website content upon receipt of a Rights Holder’s infringement notice. In such instances, a Rights Holder may be forced to seek enforcement through that foreign country’s legal system in order to remove such online content.

Time Sensitivity: As several of the listed countries in this posting are evaluating or in the process of implementing copyright reforms, either through legislation or judicial action, there is the possibility that the following information may soon change.

Overview and Notes: Argentina does not currently provide statutory notice and takedown provisions. However, it was reported in June 2014 that the Argentine Supreme Court (Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación) heard oral arguments in Rodríguez v. Google Inc., where a lower appellate court had established a ISP safe harbor test where a Rights Holder could “notify [a] search engine, identifying the alleged infringing content” and the “search engine acts expeditiously to block the content via a quick and effective filtering method.” The Argentine Supreme Court has yet to publish a final opinion in Rodríguez, and Argentina’s civil law system makes it unclear whether any such judicial decision will require that all Argentine-based ISPs be subject to notice and takedown provisions upheld in such a decision.

Overview and Notes: Brazil has evaluated notice and takedown reforms, enacted ISP liability legislation, and has even ruled that ISPs are subject to a notice system. However, it is still unclear whether nationwide notice and takedown provisions have been fully established in Brazil. In 2012, the Brazilian government evaluated the Copyright Law Reform Bill (Bill nº 3133/2012), which commentators had reported was to include U.S.-style notice and takedown provisions. However, the Reform Bill has yet to be implemented. In August 2012, the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice held in a special judiciary opinion in Google Brazil (Special Appeal No. 1323754/RJ) that an ISP was required to temporarily remove infringing content 24 hours upon notice of infringement from a Rights Holder in order to retain immunity from from contributory liability for copyright infringement. However, commentators have questioned Google Brazil’s applicability to other Brazilian-based ISPs, requirements for Rights Holder infringement notices, and the duration of an ISP’s removal obligations, based on Brazil’s civil law system.

In May 2014, the Brazilian government enacted the Internet Bill of Rights (Law No. 12.965) that establishes liability for “Internet intermediaries” for failing to timely comply with a judicial takedown order. However, the Internet Bill of Rights provides no direct Rights Holder infringement notice provisions.

Overview and Notes: Chile does not currently possess notice and takedown provisions despite agreeing in the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement (FTA) to provide “legal incentives for [ISPs] to cooperate with copyright owners in deterring the unauthorized storage and transmission of copyrighted materials.” Chile rejected adopting notice and takedown provisions in its ratification of the U.S.-Chile FTA, as well as in proposed copyright reform legislation in 2010. Instead, Chile implemented an expedited judicial enforcement process where a Rights Holder may submit a judicial petition against a Chilean-based ISP in a Chilean Civil Court to expeditiously evaluate the alleged infringement and obtain an injunctive takedown order.

-The allegedly infringed rights, with a specific indication of the rights and the infringement procedure;
-The infringing material; and
-The location of the infringing material in the ISP’s respective networks or systems.

Colombia

Enforcement System: Judicial System

Berne Convention Member: Yes

Notes and Overview: Despite multiple reform efforts, Colombia does not currently maintain any notice and takedown provisions. Colombia had agreed to adopt notice and takedown provisions in a side letter to the U.S.-Colombia FTA in 2006. However, Colombia has yet to implement such provisions. In 2011, Colombian legislators introduced copyright reforms in Bill No. 201 (aka Ley Lleras 1.0) that included notice and takedown provisions, but it was not enacted. The Colombian Congress subsequently passed similar reform legislation in 2012, Law No. 1520/2012 (aka Ley Lleras 2.0), but such legislation was largely invalidated by the Colombian Constitutional Court in January 2013 on the grounds that such legislation was not properly implemented. Additional proposed copyright reform legislation, Bill No. 306, was circulated for comments in March 2014, but does not include notice and takedown provisions and has yet to be implemented.

Overview and Notes: Ecuador does not currently maintain any notice and takedown provisions. Further, it was reported in December 2013 that the Ecuadorian National Assembly amended its Penal Code and the Intellectual Property Law to decriminalize all IP rights violations, thereby only allowing administrative actions and fines to enforce copyright in works in Ecuador, online or otherwise.

Enforcement System: Notice and Takedown System (*Restricted and Undetermined)

Berne Convention Member: Yes

Overview and Notes: French Guiana is an overseas department of France and is thereby governed by French copyright law. As a European Union (EU) member state, France was required to adopt notice and takedown provisions as provided under Article 14 of the EU Electronic Commerce Directive (Directive 2000/31/EC). However, the EU Directive provides only general recommendations, thereby giving EU member states such as France substantial flexibility to implement their own notice and takedown provisions.

France adopted notice and takedown provisions in its Creation and Internet Law where Rights Holder organizations could submit complaints to France’s online copyright authority, The High Authority for the Dissemination of Works and the Protection of Rights on the Internet (HADOPI), who would then provide notices to online infringers and remove allegedly infringing content under a graduated three-stikes approach. However, it was reported that individual Rights Holders were not allowed submit complaints to HADOPI, as such complaints must be submitted by agents of industry organizations, rights collection agencies, and the French Center of Cinematography.

Further, the French Ministry of Culture revoked the three-strikes approach on July 9, 2013 (Decree No. 2013-596) due to a perceived lack of effectiveness and public concerns that its enforcement measures were overly punitive. However, the Decree did not expressly remove the Creation and Internet Law’s ISP penalties or its notice system. However, as mentioned, the HADOPI notice system, if still in effect, can only be utilized by industry organizations, rights collection agencies, and the French Center of Cinematography on behalf of individual Rights Holders.

-Sworn declaration that the authorized agent of the referral has standing to act in the name of the Rights Holder over the protected work or materials in question;
-Information on the website address(es) and other details of the alleged infringer; and
-Information on the infringing acts including date and time of the acts.

Guyana

Enforcement System: Judicial System

Berne Convention Member: Yes

Overview and Notes: According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, copyright law in Guyana is governed by its former colonizer, the United Kingdom. However, it does not appear that Guyana has adopted notice and take provisions as required by EU member states such as the United Kingdom under Article 14 of the EU Electronic Commerce Directive (Directive 2000/31/EC).

Overview and Notes: Despite multiple reform efforts, Peru does not currently maintain any notice and takedown provisions. Peru had agreed to adopt notice and takedown provisions in a side letter to the U.S.-Peru FTA in 2006, and it did adopt several copyright reforms in 2009 in order to implement its U.S.-Peru FTA obligations. However, such reforms do not appear to include notice and takedown provisions as promised in the U.S.-Peru FTA side letter.

However, Peru may soon be required to implement notice and takedown provisions if the TTP is finalized and the U.S. draft chapter is adopted in a final TPP agreement.

Overview and Notes: Uruguay does not currently maintain any notice and takedown provisions. It is reported that Uruguay is currently considering a number of copyright reforms, yet it does not appear that notice and takedown provisions are included in such reform proposals.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced yesterday that it is requesting public comments to assist the USTR in identifying significant barriers to U.S. exports of goods and services, including foreign IP protection deficiencies. The comments are being collected for inclusion in the USTR’s annual National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers (NTE Report) that identifies barriers to U.S. exports including the “lack of intellectual property protection (e.g., inadequate patent, copyright, and trademark regimes).”

On February 8th, the IIPA submitted their 2014 Special 301 Report Submission to the USTR. As one of the largest U.S. lobbying groups for the copyright-based industries, the IIPA’s submission identifies the foreign countries the IIPA believes provides the most ineffective IP legal protections for U.S. businesses. The USTR’s final Special 301 Report (released annually April-May) provides reporting to the U.S. government and the general public on the countries that, according to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act (19 U.S.C. § 2242(a)), deny “adequate and effective protection of [IP] rights” or “fair and equitable market access to United States persons that rely upon [IP] protection.”

Although the U.S. government rarely imposes trade sanctions based on the Special 301 Report, a country’s listing in the final report often impacts the U.S.’ trade relations with that country and the degree to which the U.S. government initiates trade promotional activities with the same. From both a private sector and practical standpoint, the Report also represents a review of the markets that U.S. businesses have had the most IP protection challenges.

What countries did the IIPA recommend for inclusion in the 2014 Special 301 Report?

Priority Foreign Countries. For a second year in a row, the IIPA has identified Ukraine as being a “Priority Foreign Country.” This is the least favorable designation available under the Special 301 reporting system. Specifically, it identifies that country as one with the “most onerous or egregious acts, policies, or practices” that “have the greatest adverse impact (actual or potential) on the relevant [U.S.] products” without making efforts to ameliorate their status. 19 U.S.C. § 2242(b)(1)). Ukraine’s designation as a Priority Foreign Country was based on a number of factors, most notably the absence of effective online copyright enforcement, and unfair and non-transparent royalty society collections. Shockingly, the classification was also based on reports of widespread software pirating by Ukrainian government agencies.

Newly Non-Listed Countries. It is also important to note that the IIPA has recommended removing a number of countries from the final 2014 Special 301 Report due to their improvements in IP protection. These countries include Barbados, Bolivia, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Finland, Guatemala, Jamaica, Lebanon, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela.

What’s The Takeaway? Every foreign market has its own IP protection challenges. U.S. businesses that are exploring expansion into new markets should consider the IIPA’s Special 301 Report Submission (as well as the USTR’s Final Special 301 Report due out later this year), and the USTR’s Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets to help evaluate the IP risks associated with such markets. Doing so can help to ensure that such businesses can better protect their IP assets as they expand.

In recent years, many national customs offices have established notification procedures to allow IP rights holders the ability to alert customs officials of their IP rights in order to assist them in their import inspection activities. Like Internet Service Provider takedown requests on the Internet (more information about these procedures), IP customs office notifications is a tool for IP rights holders to protect their IP rights abroad by reducing the global spread of infringing goods and content by preventing its cross-border transit—and in many cases, assisting in its destruction. However, to utilize such protection measures, an IP rights holder must ask themselves:

Can you submit such a notification in a particular country?

Does the country you wish to enforce your IP rights have an IP customs notification system?

Does such a country’s national IP customs notification system include the type of IP you wish to protect?

What are the particular foreign customs agency’s IP notification requirements?

Can you submit a IP customs notification? Generally, an IP rights holder can only submit an IP customs notification to a foreign customs office if their IP qualifies for protection in that foreign country. Determining if particular IP qualifies for protection in a country depends on the type of IP the rights holder wishes to protect and to what extent the rights holder has secured foreign legal protections. Here is how it breaks down:

Trademarks. If an IP rights holder wants to submit a foreign customs notification to protect a trademark or service mark in another country, they usually need to have registered that mark in the IP office of that specific country or through a centralized international registration mechanism like the Madrid Protocol (more information about the Madrid Protocol). This is because trademark protection is territorial, meaning that a trademark or service mark registration only grants its owner rights in the mark in the territory of the registering country. So for example, if a U.S. company registers its trademark in the U.S. for particular goods or services and wishes to protect that trademark against infringing imports into New Zealand, it must also register that mark through the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand or the Madrid Protocol in order to submit a trademark notification to the New Zealand Customs Service.

Of course there are some important exceptions to this territoriality requirement to keep in mind. The European Union maintains a community-wide trademark system (Community Trade Mark) allowing one community registration to qualify for customs notification registration in all EU member states (a list of EU member states is available here). The African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) also maintains a community trademark system where a single OAPI community mark registration is recognized in 16 African nations (a list of EU member states is available here).

Patents. Like trademarks, a patent rights holder must generally have a registered patent in the country to which they wish to register an IP customs notification. Unlike trademarks, however, there are no current community registration exceptions. As a result, patent rights holders must register their patents in the country to which they wish to register their IP customs notifications.

Trade Secrets: Generally, as trade secrets require that their owners keep the content of their secrets confidential in order to maintain its legal protections, any disclosure of such secrets to customs officials likely eliminates such secrets’ protections. Therefore, there does not appear to be any national customs IP notification systems that permit trade secret notification.

Copyright. Unlike trademarks and patents, a work qualifying for copyright protection in one country may qualify for copyright protection in other countries in order to allow foreign customs notification registration. However, depending on the country, foreign copyright authors may need to file a copyright registration in order to submit an IP customs notification. A work qualifies for international copyright protection under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention) when it becomes attached. Attachment requires that the author of the work be a national of a Berne Convention country (Berne Convention countries), the author is a habitual resident of a Berne Convention country, that the work is first published in a Berne Convention country, or that the work is published in a Berne Convention country within 30 days after an initial publishing in a non-Berne Convention country. If a work is attached through any of these means, it is treated as if the work originated in each Berne Convention country, and is then subject to each Berne Convention country’s copyright protection requirements in order to qualify for copyright protection in that specific country.

If a work qualifies as an attached work under the Berne Convention and the IP rights holder wishes to register their protected work in a foreign Berne Convention country customs office, they will be able to file a customs registration without having authored the work in the foreign Berne Convention country. Yet, as mentioned above, countries differ on national copyright registration requirements for IP customs notifications. Australia, for example, does not require Australian copyright registration prior to submitting a customs notification application to the Australian Customs Service. However, several major markets, such as the U.S., China and India, require that copyrighted works be registered in their country prior to registering an IP customs notification.

Does the country you wish to enforce your IP rights have an IP customs notification system? Not all countries maintain IP customs notification processes. Some substantial and growing markets, such as Brazil, Canada and Chile, do not currently maintain IP custom notification systems. However, many major markets and transshipment countries maintain various types of IP customs notification systems including Argentina, Australia, China, European Union (EU), Hong Kong, India, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United States and Vietnam, among others.

Does such a country’s national IP customs notification system include the type of IP you wish to protect? Several countries only maintain IP notification systems for particular types of IP. For example, The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) only accepts copyright and trademark notifications, not patent notifications (the CBP only examines imports for patent infringement based on a Section 337 exclusion order from the U.S. International Trade Commission (more information available here)). In contrast, several other countries monitor and detain imports for possible patent and geographical indication infringement. India’s Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) in particular monitors imports for copyright, geographical indication, patent and trademark infringement.

What are the particular foreign customs agency’s IP notification requirements? Once an IP rights holder verifies that their IP qualifies for legal protections in the foreign country they wish to submit an IP customs notification, and that the type of IP they wish to notify customs about can be registered, the IP rights holder’s customs notification must comply with the foreign customs office’s own notification requirements.

Below are the IP customs notification submission requirements for some of the worlds’ major markets.

General Notes: Australian IP customs notifications are known as Notices of Objection.To register a copyright or trademark notice with Australian Customs Service, an IP rights holder must submit: (1) a notice of objection form; and (2) a deed of undertaking. Both types of forms as well as further instructions are located in the right column.

The EU refers to IP customs notifications as Applications For Action. Applications require: (1) a completed application form; and (2) a completed Article 6 Declaration. Both forms are located to the right.

Note: Individual EU member states may maintain their own IP customs notification systems (a link to individual EU member state customs agencies is available here).

**Note**: The above requirements are meant for comparative educational purposes only. IP rights holders should consult with national customs agencies or qualified attorneys in the jurisdictions they wish to enforce their rights to confirm these and other IP customs notification requirements.

Further Steps. Once an IP rights holder’s IP is registered with a foreign customs office, the foreign customs office will generally notify the rights holder or their representative of any infringing inbound shipments and may detain and potentially destroy infringing imports. However, such detentions may include legal proceedings, as well as additional country-specific enforcement procedures. IP rights holders should obtain qualified local counsel to assist with these enforcement activities.

Establishing methods for enforcing copyright protections online has become increasingly important to protecting a content owner’s rights in their works—as demonstrated by the recent launch of the Copyright Alert System (CAS) in the U.S. Most content owners do not have the same resources for online copyright enforcement as the Media and Internet service provider industries (two central sponsors of CAS). However, nearly all owners of protected works can take advantage of relatively inexpensive online copyright enforcement methods to protect their works in many of the world’s major markets. The most commonly used means of enforcement are takedown notices—demands sent from content owners to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or website hosts to remove infringing content hosted on websites under their control. Depending on the circumstances, an ISP may be compelled upon receiving a takedown notice to remove infringing content from a hosted website, or in some cases, an entire website, for a temporary or extended amount of time.

Takedown notices can have substantial implications on an infringer’s online presence. A takedown can interrupt access to a infringer’s site, potential disrupt or halt their business, and can possibly result in the deletion of their site’s user comments and feedback. With these potentially serious consequences in mind, a rights holder should consider exhausting all alternatives before submitting a takedown notice against an infringing website.

Determining whether to and how to utilize takedown notices as a international copyright enforcement tool requires understanding a few things:

What international legal protections does a rights owner have in their works

Where are works being infringed online

Where is an ISP subject to jurisdiction

What countries have national takedown procedures and what are such countries’ requirements

Further issues after a takedown notice is submitted

Let’s break these down a little further:

What International Legal Protections Does a Rights Owner Have in Their Works? A rights owner cannot consider utilizing takedown procedures abroad without first establishing that their works qualify for international copyright protection. A work qualifies for international copyright protection under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention) when it becomes attached. Attachment requires that the author of the work be a national of a Berne Convention country (A list of Berne Convention countries is available here), the author is a habitual resident of a Berne Convention country, that the work is first published in a Berne Convention country, or that the work is published in a Berne Convention country within 30 days after an initial publishing in a non-Berne Convention country. If a work is attached through any of these means, it is treated as if the work originated in each Berne Convention country, and is then subject to each Berne Convention country’s copyright protection requirements in order to qualify for copyright protection in that specific country.

If a content owner has questions about whether their content qualifies for international copyright protection, they should consider consulting with their national copyright office or a qualified attorney.

Where are Works Being Infringed Online?To determine if any enforcement measure can be utilized, it is essential to know where in the world a work is being infringed online.If a work is being used without authorization and is available on the Internet in a particular country, it is likely being infringed in that particular country. For example, if a song by a Spanish artist, that qualifies as a protected work under the Berne Convention, is uploaded without authorization by a Malaysian file sharer to their website and is accessible throughout the entire world, it is being infringed in both Malaysia and Spain, as well as potentially in the other 164 Berne Convention countries.

Where is an ISP Subject to Jurisdiction? In order to effectively submit a takedown notice in a country where a protected work is infringed online, the ISP of the infringing website must be subject to that country’s laws in order for the ISP to be potentially compelled to comply with a takedown request. Generally, an ISP is only subject to the laws of a country where it is physically located or countries where it is engaged in enough commercial activity to establish personal jurisdiction. Determining an infringing site’s ISP can be completed through conducting a WHOIS database search. Such a search may also help identify the ISP’s host country by providing details about the ISP. However, this is not always a certainty.

If an ISP is located in the country where a work is infringed online, a rights owner only needs to establish whether that country has takedown procedures (see next section) to determine whether they can utilize takedown notices. However, determining whether an ISP is subject to the copyright laws of a country where it is not physically located is more difficult. In the U.S., a foreign ISP must at least have sufficient “minimum contacts” with the U.S. for the foreign-based ISP to be subject to U.S. law, and potential liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Int’l Shoe Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). Generally, such contacts have required purposeful interactions with U.S. citizens and commerce, such as marketing its services in the U.S. that would foreseeably bring the ISP under U.S. jurisdiction. Asahi Metal Indus. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 112 (1987). It must also be “reasonable” to bring the ISP under U.S. jurisdiction, based on multiple factors. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292 (1980).

To illustrate these requirements using the previous example of the Spanish musician: Let’s assume that an Australian ISP hosts the Malaysian file-sharer website whose infringing content is available in the U.S., but the ISP does not market or make its services available in the U.S. In this case, the ISP would likely not be subject to U.S. law. Therefore, it is likely that the ISP is only subject to Australian law due to its location in Australia—and possibly Malaysian law if qualifying under Malaysian personal jurisdiction requirements. Alternatively, if the Australian ISP actively markets its services to U.S. citizens and businesses, the ISP may be subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and thereby potential liability under the DMCA. This would give the Spanish artist the ability to submit a U.S. takedown notice against the Australian ISP that would subject the ISP to potential liability under the DMCA if is fails to take action on the takedown notice.

Two important things to note:

Failing to qualify for jurisdiction does not mean a rights holder is barred from demanding an ISP to takedown content that infringes a protected work. It simply means that an ISP may not be compelled or have incentive to remove infringing content because they are unlikely to face liability.

Many content submission sites like YouTube and Facebook, as well as search engines such as Google and Bing, maintain their own takedown submissions procedures that are generally available to users regardless of their geographical location or where a protected work is infringed online.

What Countries Have National Takedown Procedures and What are Such Countries’ Requirements? To effectively utilize takedown procedure against an ISP, the ISP’s host country or country to which it is brought under personal jurisdiction must possess takedown procedures for rights holders, and such rights holders must comply with such procedural requirements. This requires understanding:

Whether the country to which the ISP is subject to jurisdiction has takedown notice legislation

If so, what are the country’s takedown notice requirements and procedures.

National Takedown Notice Legislation.Surprisingly, not all countries maintain takedown notice legislation for rights holders. Major markets including Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India, Israel, Mexico and Russia are among those that don’t currently have takedown notice procedures. Despite such gaps, a large number of Berne Convention countries have enacted takedown notice legislation including the U.S., Australia, China, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan and the United Kingdom, to name a few.

National Takedown Notice Requirements:Below are the requirements for takedown notices in a number of major markets that have notice and takedown legislation.

A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the rights holder alleging infringement;

Identification of the copyrighted work(s) claimed to have been infringed;

Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing and wished to be removed or disabled, including any reasonable information that would allow an ISP to locate the material (i.e. website addresses);

A statement that the rights holder has a good faith belief that the use of their content is not authorized by the rights holder; and

A statement that the information provided is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

The statement: “I am the owner (or agent of the owner of the copyright) in the copyright material specified in the Schedule [See number 7], being copyright material residing on your system or network.”

(If submitted by a copyright owner) The statement: “I believe, in good faith, that the storage of the specified copyright material on your system or network is not authorized by me or a licensee, or the Copyright Act 1968, and is therefore an infringement of the copyright in that material.”;

(If submitted by a copyright owner’s agent) The statement: “I believe, in good faith, that the storage of the specified copyright material on your system or network is not authorized by the copyright owner or a licensee of the copyright owner, or the Copyright Act 1968, and is therefore an infringement of the copyright in that material”;

(If submitted by a copyright owner’s agent) The statement: “I have taken reasonable steps to ensure that the information and statements in this notice are accurate.”;

The copyright owner or their agent’s name, address, e-mail address, telephone number and fax number; and

An attached schedule to the notice including a description of the copyright material and the location of the infringing content.

A statement that there appears to have been an infringement of the owner’s copyright in the protected work;

A description of the apparent infringement;

Evidence of the apparent infringement that shows the infringer’s IP address and the time at which the evidence of infringement was gathered;

Notice must be sent to the ISP within one (1) month of when evidence of the infringement; and

The notice complies with any other requirement of the initial obligations code.

Note: Some of these national take down requirements are derived from translations. Rights holders should consult with National Copyright Offices or qualified attorneys in the jurisdictions they wish to enforce their rights in order to confirm these and other take down notice requirements.

Further Issues After a Takedown Notice is Submitted. Finally, it is important to note that there are issues to consider after a takedown notice has been submitted. First, an infringer may respond to a takedown notice by submitting a counter notice attesting to their rights in a protected work, even after their online content or website has been blocked or removed. Also, an ISP may refuse to act after a takedown notice has been submitted. If these circumstances arise, one should consider contacting a qualified attorney to discuss further actions.

Special thanks to co-author Kenneth Louis Strocsher, J.D. Candidate, 2014, Seattle University School of Law.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) released an Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets on Thursday, December 13, 2012, which identified physical and online markets reported by U.S. businesses and industry organizations as being engaged in substantial intellectual property piracy and counterfeiting. The Review included particular social media, multi-platform, deeplinking, cyberlocker, business-to-business, business-to-consumer, bit torrent indexing, bit torrent tracking, and pay-per-download websites. Specific physical markets in Argentina, China, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Thailand, and Ukraine were also deemed notorious.

Other notable changes in the Review included the removal of Chinese websites Taobao and Sogou as notorious markets, for their efforts to work with rights-holders to identify infringing content on their websites.